grapes
ok, permit me the occasional gripe. well, not really even a gripe, but just interesting to note. maybe it's more like a grape:
when you tell people you're an artist, you sometimes have to be ready to hear exactly what you don't want to hear (from this well-meaning blonde white woman at the gym):
"Oh, my girlfriend got published and now her designs are on shower curtains at Bed Bath and Beyond. You should look into that because the Asian stuff is really hot right now and you could make a good deal of money. She does Asian calligraphy (and she's not Asian -- she's about as Asian as me) which she sells prints of. Then wild apple press got a hold of them and printed them on shower curtains."
boo. i don't blame her -- she's generally well-meaning, and, like a lot of people, just want to help out in whatever ways she knows now. and nowadays artists are running the entire gamut in terms of seriousness, in terms of participation in the commercial market. what bothers me isn't about being insulted as an artist. it's more about not being understood in general. in any case, that's my own issue -- during times of uncertainty about where i'm going with my art, i can barely talk about it because it brings me to tears (not in a bad way necessarily). but not being understood doesn't help. so i should just tell people i'm an acrobat or something....
meanwhile, yesterday's SF Arts townhall was interesting. it was a huge convergence of hundreds of art funders, orgs, and individual artists. it was interesting because in a lot of ways you got a picture of the arts in the bay area at this thing -- really diverse, really tied to culture. i think if there was any way to describe the bay area arts scene, that's what it is. my gripe, uh, grape is that there is still a bit of a ghetto-izing mentality about art. For instance, it was acknowledged that pretty much most of the money that's set aside for arts have to go through the non-profit organizations. There are some good reasons for this, like fiscal accountability (good for the foundations), and there are some benefits, like the fact that the orgs do all the book-keeping, can put money up front, can take donations that qualify for tax deductions, etc. But in practice, it seems still system that just isn't willing to take risks on the talent and vision of the artists. It's the safe way of going about things. there are other problems too, like the fact that it's a very project-to-project kinda relationship, the fact that some organizations have no idea what artists do, the fact that the artist still has to take into account the mission statement of the organization. but the core of the problem is that the larger art world in the bay are isn't even asking what artists really need. i heard a lot of idealism in the talks yesterday but not a lot of practical solutions. i was struck forcibly by the ignorance of what artists are and do. for instance, if they really knew what artists do, they might think that artists need (besides money), time, space, fellowship and sharing opportunities, opportunities for dialogue, and mentorship/apprenticeship opportunities. I don't want to work with a non-profit that doesn't know what an artist is, because I would then still be isolated and ghetto-ized as "the artist" -- i want to work with working artists who have been through it and can provide guidance through osmosis. being an artist is not just a matter of skill, it's a matter of character, of vision, of the way you live your life -- how can an organization provide this?
perhaps i'm being too idealistic, but that's where i think we need to go. i think the problem that's frustrating me in the bay area is that there's not a lot of risk-taking. and how can you make art without risk? the only talk i heard in terms of risk was in the realm of this ongoing emphasis on artists becoming entrepreneurs. there's been a lot of stress lately on putting the responsibility of marketing and promotion all on the artist. i agree that probably is necessary, but ideally it's not something artists should be doing long-term. while there are lots of multi-talented artists in the bay, it's a ridiculous notion that artists should be asked to compete in terms of business-savvy with others who are doing business full-time. that's one thing i got from my business class -- that you're not just competing against others in your field (in this case, other artists, just to entertain this business model for a second), but also any others who can potentially take away your customers). artists in the bay take this, i think, because we are well-rounded and have interests in many areas. we are generalists, independent, savvy. but it doesn't allow enough time and energy for making art. i think this increasing emphasis on the business-savvy artist is, again, convenient for the funders because it saves money long-term and it probably is easier to justify giving money for promotion and business than it is for creation. And again, it's about that risk-taking -- I just spent $100 on art supplies today. And it's a risk, because there's no guarantee that I will make that $100 back any time soon from art supplies. and $100 is a drop in the bucket in terms of art expenses -- it's 2 brushes, 3 stretched canvases, a tub of acrylic medium, and a small tube of red acrylic paint. so when people expect artists to show in cafes and sell their finished pieces (usually only the very best of the many iterations and experiments the artists have worked on) for $100, is it not hard to laugh?
didn't mean to make this a manifesto, nor to sound like sour grapes. i say grapes cuz i like to invent words sometimes. it's more just some observations i've made about the bay area arts scene.
when you tell people you're an artist, you sometimes have to be ready to hear exactly what you don't want to hear (from this well-meaning blonde white woman at the gym):
"Oh, my girlfriend got published and now her designs are on shower curtains at Bed Bath and Beyond. You should look into that because the Asian stuff is really hot right now and you could make a good deal of money. She does Asian calligraphy (and she's not Asian -- she's about as Asian as me) which she sells prints of. Then wild apple press got a hold of them and printed them on shower curtains."
boo. i don't blame her -- she's generally well-meaning, and, like a lot of people, just want to help out in whatever ways she knows now. and nowadays artists are running the entire gamut in terms of seriousness, in terms of participation in the commercial market. what bothers me isn't about being insulted as an artist. it's more about not being understood in general. in any case, that's my own issue -- during times of uncertainty about where i'm going with my art, i can barely talk about it because it brings me to tears (not in a bad way necessarily). but not being understood doesn't help. so i should just tell people i'm an acrobat or something....
meanwhile, yesterday's SF Arts townhall was interesting. it was a huge convergence of hundreds of art funders, orgs, and individual artists. it was interesting because in a lot of ways you got a picture of the arts in the bay area at this thing -- really diverse, really tied to culture. i think if there was any way to describe the bay area arts scene, that's what it is. my gripe, uh, grape is that there is still a bit of a ghetto-izing mentality about art. For instance, it was acknowledged that pretty much most of the money that's set aside for arts have to go through the non-profit organizations. There are some good reasons for this, like fiscal accountability (good for the foundations), and there are some benefits, like the fact that the orgs do all the book-keeping, can put money up front, can take donations that qualify for tax deductions, etc. But in practice, it seems still system that just isn't willing to take risks on the talent and vision of the artists. It's the safe way of going about things. there are other problems too, like the fact that it's a very project-to-project kinda relationship, the fact that some organizations have no idea what artists do, the fact that the artist still has to take into account the mission statement of the organization. but the core of the problem is that the larger art world in the bay are isn't even asking what artists really need. i heard a lot of idealism in the talks yesterday but not a lot of practical solutions. i was struck forcibly by the ignorance of what artists are and do. for instance, if they really knew what artists do, they might think that artists need (besides money), time, space, fellowship and sharing opportunities, opportunities for dialogue, and mentorship/apprenticeship opportunities. I don't want to work with a non-profit that doesn't know what an artist is, because I would then still be isolated and ghetto-ized as "the artist" -- i want to work with working artists who have been through it and can provide guidance through osmosis. being an artist is not just a matter of skill, it's a matter of character, of vision, of the way you live your life -- how can an organization provide this?
perhaps i'm being too idealistic, but that's where i think we need to go. i think the problem that's frustrating me in the bay area is that there's not a lot of risk-taking. and how can you make art without risk? the only talk i heard in terms of risk was in the realm of this ongoing emphasis on artists becoming entrepreneurs. there's been a lot of stress lately on putting the responsibility of marketing and promotion all on the artist. i agree that probably is necessary, but ideally it's not something artists should be doing long-term. while there are lots of multi-talented artists in the bay, it's a ridiculous notion that artists should be asked to compete in terms of business-savvy with others who are doing business full-time. that's one thing i got from my business class -- that you're not just competing against others in your field (in this case, other artists, just to entertain this business model for a second), but also any others who can potentially take away your customers). artists in the bay take this, i think, because we are well-rounded and have interests in many areas. we are generalists, independent, savvy. but it doesn't allow enough time and energy for making art. i think this increasing emphasis on the business-savvy artist is, again, convenient for the funders because it saves money long-term and it probably is easier to justify giving money for promotion and business than it is for creation. And again, it's about that risk-taking -- I just spent $100 on art supplies today. And it's a risk, because there's no guarantee that I will make that $100 back any time soon from art supplies. and $100 is a drop in the bucket in terms of art expenses -- it's 2 brushes, 3 stretched canvases, a tub of acrylic medium, and a small tube of red acrylic paint. so when people expect artists to show in cafes and sell their finished pieces (usually only the very best of the many iterations and experiments the artists have worked on) for $100, is it not hard to laugh?
didn't mean to make this a manifesto, nor to sound like sour grapes. i say grapes cuz i like to invent words sometimes. it's more just some observations i've made about the bay area arts scene.